>> good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. aim pastor gavn. i'm here because the passion the 41 groups have shown in regards to the sequa. in coming here today on earth day when i first became aware of it was recycle, reduce and reuse. but, you know, and i thought about what was happening how we only had one option i thought of you and i thought about the district you represent and i thought how can it be we only have one proposal. and here now we have two and i think that's phenomenal because you believe in a democratic

system. i think we have an important choice. i used to here not being a native of california but this is such a piece of important legislation that will come before the board how about as san francisco goes so goes the nation. how often taking the proper time to vet something will be having a huge implication on all san franciscans. so i think we need to take the time to do this right this is a very important piece of legislation and it will translate into both for future elections for both of you. i hope you do the right thing and let's get this right this time around now that we have

more than one option >> i do have one more card. >> hello president and supervisors. >> thank you for all the work you've put into this i'll spent a lot of time in this. i'm going to recycle what i said last time and urge you to allow supervisor kim's legislation to be heard by supervisor wiener's legislation. we should take our time and make sure to do this right >> thank you. next speaker >> thank you, very much. i'm with a few hats as a d 5 voter. so i just want to revisit a

couple of things. we're amendment sequa we're changing the pursues we use within san francisco and that changes sequa. i came to speak in support of supervisor kim's legislation but i want to say we need more work done on this. some people have stolen my thunder but it's earth day what the hell are we doing here this is important. and we need to take the time interest thank you very much >> and the alliance for jobs and sustainable growth. we've taken 10 years to codify what should be codified for

permit applicant and appellant. it's outrageous we don't have a system in place for certain how you file an appeal. it's now being used to potentially expanding and this is setting up a road map for how to appeal sequa on a lot of small projects. this isn't a sports facility, this isn't a major downtown project they're going to have a well-known process for litigating. this is for small businesses are th are swept up into a process

and all we're saying is let those legislations go forward as quickly as possible >> thank you, very much. >> good afternoon. i'm here to speak in supervisor wiener's legislation to make environmental review for transparent and predictable. our firm represents all people who want to expand high-rises in the downtown. the process falls most heally with the few it environmental impacts.

rather than being general you having are a homeowner you get an ximths for that you go to the preservation committee and your project is in jeopardy and you've spent thousands of dollars progressing your permits through d b i and you can still be appealed. in contrast if you tear that building do you think you have your education i r and i can move forward without any other hitches >> if i could please ask the members of the public if you want to speak go out into the hallway. >> i'm glad you're making the

best efforts to fix this. i think it's important that san francisco implements sequa. i side understand the problems of notes but the sequa appeals are not mutually exclusive. this is without creating additional delay this is something very important in a city known for the amount of time to get permits >> thank you very much. >> good afternoon. i'm a born and raised san franciscan.

i watched this bait-and-switch act from the america's cup how they tell us one thing and do another. there was very little community input it was shoved down our throat and oh, well, if you say something you'll be a target. so i think that coming from the community i want it's important that we keep this lines of communication open not just for the rich but for the poor and additionally we don't have access to laptops. it's important you guys do the right thing. i know you guys were elected and

sworn in and i was there. i say you guys campaign. we are the people. it's not this - you know, those people come here a hired guns they have a job they're doing their job. i'm higher because i know what's right and wrong. we want to make sure we're part of this whole bureaucracy. >> thank you chair wiener, supervisors. let me agree that over 10 years you are the fourth member of the board of supervisors including myself that have tried to time

limit and i'm hopeful that the fourth time will be a charm. and i want offer those ten years we've had the same problem. and it's the problem of notice. and it has been very difficult for the planning department how to grapple how to get the time clock going. and the sequa observes of how something was time approved. now the good say we have and continue to agree that that we should time limit appeals for neck decks. we all agree that section 31.16 is currently written inc. broke

and i want to thank you supervisor wiener and supervisor kim for reaching out to the community and to president chiu who has addressed some of the most fundamental concerns that effect the city citywide. there are still a number of change and some of those are the result of the way the city attorney reads or recent fully miss reads. i hope you will all kick that may - >> thank you. next speaker >> i have been a resident in

san francisco for over 20 years. i think we need less development in the city not more. >> are there any other members of the public who wish to comment? seeing none, public commit is closed. supervisor chu as offered several amendments which are before us. in addition i mentioned a understanding at the beginning to talk about the importance of sequa and how, of course, this legislation is not about amendment or changing and i ask we all the time that in as well. president chiu >> a couple of comments.

i want to thank everyone for their feedback. to continue to further discussion i'd like to over amendments and i'm fine with either approach or duplicating the file and putting it as another version so the public has noticeable i'm happy for either approach. a couple questions and i'm happy to get feedback after this session. i hear controversial discussion about a section and by and large both supervisors can versions can significantly all the time the provisions. on suggesting on when the timing of the versions might have to

come to committee if those version are not before us at the same time everyone knows that everyone has been looking at both elections and i think we're trying to looked at both of the versions. i know that the planning department is going to be considering supervisor kim's versus this thursday and certainly by the time this get back to committee at least we'll have that significant feedback but i'd like to at least put the amendments that i have talked about put them on the public domain and look forward to that ongoing conversation. i hope that all the cooks in the kitchen can figure out how to put forth a simple clarification

to the public. so with that i'd like to move forward the amendments at least for public consideration today >> that is a motion by president chiu to amend amendment one. >> and just to lay it on the table i'll make a motion president chiu can you make a motion to add in the finding that i distributed? >> it absolutely says there's nothing in the ordinance that would change the ordinances of sequa law or otherwise limit the authority to decide sequa appeals. >> and i have some extra copies out front if anyone wants them.

so we have that motion on the table and supervise kim >> the - so. >> so we have the motion to adopt the amendments and also the finding that i had adopted previously colleagues can we take them out objection? >> i want to appreciate all the members of the public that are here. it's really great to see how our community can be engaged in. but i talked in the beginning today about how there are two prospective's how did sequa can be presented to the council. the legislation that we have

proposed intends to put into place a process of - that makes it easier for our public to be engaged in. admittedly this legislation is not about making the jobs of our planning staff earrings but i acknowledge this legislation does add work to the planning department. you'll see some of their concerns in our policy. however, we inside to have a process that is clearer and more transparent for the public then we should. real people who live in our neighborhood people care a lot about development that occurs in their neighborhood. in our parks and developments

that be about built across the streets from their house their voice and their concerns get heard. notification is a very important piece of that. i'd like to respond to some of the comments i'd like to have a conversation about how to make those difficult tasks possible. the electronic noifks process we'd like a prescription process where the folks can getty for identification whether it's paradoxes in their neighborhood or the - the planning department said it would be very cumbersome. you can tag items i get advisements from department

stores i want to offer this to people who would like e-mail. i'll say about development i've been i feel like one of the more pro development supervisors. i've stood on many sides of the folks here and while we and by

make the process better for both developers and the community. and the words we put into a process that has been similar to what we have been doing for the last ten years. again, i believe that i have been largely for development, but i do this because i believe that our robust process brings largely good process in the end and if we did not have the process, that we have in place today i would not support as many developments throughout the studio and particularly in district six. the last thing about time is that i am glad that we are going to be able to put some time into this legislation, and i don't think that we are spelling good legislation, it is just that we have good input through this process, we would like to thank supervisor weiner, and even through last friday, we are continuing to get good impute on both legislations one of which actually (inaudible) had made as to what we can do on the

front end to expedite the processes that we have the city to agree in. we have to degree ... agree. but we already have a process in place that they get assigned and we work on the completeness of application, i would like to explore to see if we can create a deadline for the determine maition for these types of projects. i look forward to work with everywhere, i don't think that there say good or a bad act. i am glad that largely we are having a discussion on how to improve this process thank you. >> thank you supervisor kim.

>> supervisor campos e >> thank you just what i want to say is just to take sort of this discussion beyond the technicalities that are involved is that i think that it is important for us to think about what is happening in the city right now and to see that as providing a context for why these positions are so important and let me begin by saying that i agree by what was said by everyone here. you have a lot of smart and good people who are trying to make the right policy decisions and i think that everyone here whether it is the district proposal is trying to get to a good result for the city and it is trying to do the right thing. and that said, i do think that there say fundamental difference of opinion in terms of what business, or what needs to be a priority right now.

i think that with respect to the procedures around sequa that there is agreement that there has to be more clarity and there has to be more certainty. the problem that i have with the over all approach and that is my own personal view in terms of how i see the vision or the proposal that has been presented by supervisor weiner is that i think that if the proposal goes forward you are going to have a situation that could lead to less community input, less community involvement with respect to a number of projects and i actually think that that is something that ultimately hurts not only the community but actually hurts the city as a whole. there are many examples of cases where sequa and the procedures around that have been abused and many examples where those procedures and the way that they are implemented have actually benefited the community.

the question is, striking that right balance. but, in terms of whether we are as a city, let me just say this, that what i see in my district, and especially in a neighborhood like the mission, when i talk to people, people are not talking to me about how it is important for us to reform sequa and how it is important for us to make sure that we expedite and clarify the procedures around negative declarations or what it might be. what i am hearing from people in my neighborhood is about the fact that there is so much development that is happening, that many people are being displaced. and i went to a breakfast that the democratic party had recently, and at that, i don't think that, they are representative in congress and nancy said that there are so

many construction so many cranes that crane is the official bird of san francisco. and there is something to be said for that. there is a lot of development, there is a lot of construction there and many good things that happened with that. but with that, there are negative consequences. there are many people who are being displaced and as that displacement is taking place as you have low income but quite frankly middle income and probably you know upper middle income people who are having a hard time staying in san francisco. i don't believe that we need to expedite the process, i am not saying that it is not broken and should not be fixed, but in terms whaf is happening out there and these neighborhoods, that the discussions that we are engaging in that is not the

priority and i do believe and recognize that it will be more work for the planning department and i appreciate that we have a hard working department and we have a lot of staff and cap able and quite frankly i do think that in these types that the additional work is probably appropriate because we need to think about how these decisions are being made and how they are impacting real people. and i have to say, that i am worried about the time line and the process that it looks, we are going to follow here. i appreciate the fact that there has been, you know, a lot of work in the last few months and that prior to that, there were many years of discussion. but, this, the context in which this change and these changes are happening is relatively new context in the sense that what is happening out there, is a very unique thing, it is a very unique time for san francisco. we have seen some periods like it, but it is very unique and

it has its own character and i worry that having these deadlines whether it is may fourth or may 20th, is not going to give us enough time to truly have a meaningful discussion. and my own personal view, reading the responses from the planning department to the proposal that was made by supervisor kim that i am proud to co-sponsor, i personally believe that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of some of the points that are raised in this proposal and i do worry that we are not going to have enough time to have a meaningful analysis of what each proposal means going forward. so i am worried, i am worried that we are talking about coming back in early may. when i do think that there is an actual disconnect between how the planning department is reading what is being proposed and what actually is intended to be proposed and there is a difference of opinion between that and the city attorney.

so, really think that this is a very critical time in the history of san francisco and the very question that is before us, goes to the heart of who gets to leave live in san francisco. we may think that we are talking about it. it is fundamental question, if we don't do this right, in five or 15 or ten years that the city will look different than what it looks like today. >> thank you supervisor campos. i have a couple of comments. so, campos, i agree that people are not stopping me on the street and in the grocery store to talk about sequa reform and talk about the appeal process. but i will tell you what people do stop me on the street and the grocery store and elsewhere to talk about, is a deep, deep,

frustration about how community benefiting projects, parks, libraries, bike improvement, pedestrian safety improvement, affordable housing. a deep frustration about how incredibly long and how expensive it is to get these communities benefiting projects done. it is the people are deeply frustrated. what they do stop me about is why isn't my park getting fixed up so quickly, i voted for a bond, years and years ago and it is still not being improved. why is my library in north beach, why did it take so long for that project to get under way? why don't i have bike safety improvements yet? why did that take so long? it is not about sequa specifically, it is about the process that